Let me be clear - Traditional Christianity is now always and all-the-time dishonest

By my evaluation, traditional Christians are being consistently dishonest about what their faith actually entails. 

They talk and write that real Christianity is about humble obedience to the obvious and necessary truth of that external authority which is The Church. 

Meanwhile, all the time, top to bottom they are making personal subjective choices. 

They have chosen their church, chosen to regard it as the real church, the true church, the necessary necessary church. 

They have chosen the evidences by which they argue for all these - they have chosen how to interpret these evidences. 

They have chosen which among the leaders and administrators and practitioners of their church they will regard as true and worthy of obedience - and conversely they have chosen which voices are heretical, wicked, foolish etc. 

They have chosen what is vital and significant among sins and virtues, and one a daily basis they choose how to live their Christian lives among the almost limitless possibilities. 

These are just facts about religion, about Christianity, here and now, as it actually is. They have been and are exercising personal choices all the time. 

And speaking and writing about the need for humble obedience to the obvious truth of their Church - as if that was possible - makes any difference to the facts. 

It is therefore dishonest, in-denial, and grossly misleading. 

To have an honest and relevant discussion, it is first vital to acknowledge the realities -- and the reality is that not a single person in The West actually practices the humble, obedient, Church-led religions so insisted-upon by Traditionalist Christians. 

They do not, and neither does anybody else - and it is impossible. 

Such plain facts of Christian living ought to be the agreed and basic starting point; if what is desired is coherent and helpful discussion.

Motivational speakers, or writers - Edward Dutton on Jonathan Bowden

I recently read my old colleague Ed Dutton's biography of a "radical Right" political figure called Jonathan Bowden (1962-2012); which has just been published. 

I had never heard of Bowden until after he had died, and was not interested by what I discovered. His ideas were seemingly derived from the same kind of (fundamentally deficient) "based", "reactionary", nationalistic, Nietzschian, this-worldly and hedonically-calibrated non-religious sources as are always knocking about on the internet - ideas capable of generating a little bit of light, but no sustained heat.

So it seems that JB was not an original or coherent philosopher - it was not what he said that made him distinctive, but how he said it. 

What was of general interest about Bowden, as Dutton presents him, is that he was an orator of genius, a live public speaker who was capable of inspiring and motivating people in a remarkable way - so that those present retained the influence for a long time afterwards.

It seems that the inspirational effect was sufficiently objective that Bowden has developed a posthumous following, based upon videos of his speeches.  

Ed describes him as a "shaman" - to emphasize the strong magical spell that JB cast on his listeners. 

The other striking aspect of Bowden was that he was a long-term and wide-ranging self-aggrandizing liar about almost everything to do with himself. 

This was very extreme; and while his friends and colleagues realized that Bowden was prone to exaggerate and fabricate; apparently none of them realized the sheer scope and depth of his dishonesty. 

As well as all kinds of stuff about a constellation of false academic qualifications and intellectual attainments; perhaps the strangest lie was a highly elaborate construction about being a wealthy and successful businessman, with a wife and four (or five) children. 

Bowden provided people with all kinds of everyday details and specifics about the family's history and current doings - when the reality was that Bowden was never married, never had a job - and subsisted on a very small income from his father and benefits, probably never had a girlfriend, and lived alone in a rotting caravan. 

This strange story makes me think about the role of motivational speaking, and by extension writing - the considerable extent to which we seek, and rely upon this...

And how there are some people who are exceptionally gifted in this direction; and in ways that seem to depend extraordinarily little upon their actual attainments, or the content of what they are saying. 

On the one hand, it is striking how highly valued is this ability - how grateful people are, for being stirred-up and given confidence and direction. 

And on the other hand, how little substance is needed for this to happen - or even how that substance may be vague, impossible, or incoherent.   

It seems a fact about humans that we desire to be inspired by others - no matter or unworthy or flimsy are those chosen - none of which seems to make a difference to the intense loyalty and affection that are directed at those capable of doing such inspiring. 

As Dutton analyses it; this is what Max Weber termed "charisma" in a leader - and charisma can, to some extent, be associated with a variety of adverse and undesirable experiences and personality traits. 

Nowadays, charisma is mostly artificial and manufactured by the machinery of advertising, public relations, propaganda and saturation mass media coverage; so that someone without any exceptional degree of genuine charisma can be passed off as a "shaman"...

(Just as the public can successfully be manipulated to react to very ordinary-looking actresses and actors, pop stars or other public figures; as if they were truly beautiful, handsome or sexy; or can be induced to regard mildly-competent, socially-conformist and ideologically-mainstream pundits or writers; as if they were towering intellects, path-breaking radicals, or creative powerhouses...) 

But there is also such a thing as real interpersonal charisma - that does not depend on anything except human presence and the human voice - and this "real thing" was apparently what Jonathan Bowden had in spades. 

Lady Day

It seems worth noting that this is Lady Day  - March 25th, officially the Feast of the Annunciation, commemorating the day that Jesus was conceived on his Mother by the Spirit of God. 

Lady Day was greatly celebrated in Merrie England, and was indeed - until 1752 and the imposition of the Gregorian Calendar, when it was moved to the 6th April - the first day of the New Year.

Coming four days after the Vernal Equinox, Lady Day has the same kind of astronomical basis as Christmas has in relation to the Winter Solstice - and thereby links with natural religion. 

England in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages was known for an especially high degree of devotion to Mary - probably something that came via the Celtic Church, with its many links to Constantinople; but was powerfully sustained over many generations. 

It was a day for various kinds of religious celebrations, and also a day on which fairies might be seen; suggesting a distinctively Celtic harmony and synergy of the pagan and Christian forms. 

Lady Day is timely because such matters are much on my mind; in particular the question of the underlying spiritual reality (rather than the theological superstructure) of Christian devotion to Mary - which strikes me as overall a Good Thing, however critical I am of most of the details.

Devotion to Mary seems like a corrective to the abstractions of orthodox monotheistic Trinitarianism, and a heart-warming of Christianity - as well as recognition of a fundamental and metaphysical reality. 

It also seems like a part of England's destiny and the destiny of the English; in some rather obscure way, that I think needs elucidation and therefore deserves a greater effort of understanding.   

We Are Not Alone, objectively - but subjectively, we are alienated

The alien Marvin (the Martian), asserts objective reality 

Modern alienation is a very real thing: which is to say the experience of being cut-off from God, reality, this world, other people... is inescapable as a subjective experience, and this has profound religious, social and political consequences. 

Yet alienation is an inwardly-caused phenomenon. Alienation is not a reality imposed by the external nature of things.

We were all spontaneously and involuntarily (and most unconsciously) immersed in "everything else" at the early phases of our existence - and that is the primary reality of divine creation. 

It could be called a complete web of "interconnectedness" - except that "connect" assumes that we begin as separate, and must overcome separateness by connecting. The reality is the opposite - we begin as only partially separated in our awareness from the oneness of divine creation. That is the baseline.  

We modern Men are now alienated because in the course of human development we have each cut ourselves off from that spontaneous immersion in "everything else": the barrier arises from within us. 

That barrier which cuts-off modern adults can be, and is at times, dissolved (or demolished); for instance by dreaming sleep, mental illness and brain disease, intoxication - or sometimes by meditation.

But all of these make us dysfunctional, and none of them succeed in restoring the natural spontaneity of an earlier phase of consciousness.

The earlier phase of spontaneous immersive consciousness is like the childhood phase of development - such that once an individual has developed beyond childhood, childhood can never wholly or healthily be re-established.

In other words; we should take the cut-offness of modern alienation as a fact-of-life and the basis for further developments - yet we also need to bear in mind that the ultimate reality is, as it always was, one in which we are naturally and inescapably immersed in reality - including the reality of the divine, of the universe, of other people. 

Therefore we do not need to "re-connect" because dis-connection is not the problem. 

Instead; the problem is in our own consciousness - which is "stuck" in a phase that denies the reality of its immersion in the whole of divine creation. 

What we need to work-on is our own personal consciousness of reality: we need to become conscious of that we we are currently not conscious. 

Modern Man usually denies the reality of that of which he is not spontaneously conscious - such as the divine. (That is: we deny the reality of God because we Moderns are no longer spontaneously and continuously aware of God, as was once the case.) 

I am saying that we need, instead, to acknowledge the reality of our connectedness-to/ immersion-in the divine; and from that conviction strive to become conscious of the actuality of this link.

Acknowledge reality: then strive for awareness of that reality...

To put it differently; we Modern men have (under God's will) developed alienation, which is an increasing individual independence from the whole - and this development has happened because this is also a greater freedom and agency*. 

In other words; the "universal" awareness that was once spontaneous and inescapable, is now voluntary and chosen.

What is needed is not a return but a development. So, this voluntary and chosen acknowledgement of connectedness to other people/ the world/ God is a new thing - a deliberate step forward - not a surrender or relaxation backwards..

A doing, not an undoing.

Because new, the needful awareness is subjectively experienced differently from the old childhood or child-like consciousness - we need to be self-aware, aware of our own awareness. 

This is not under compulsion nor necessity; this is something that we are aware that we have-chosen (and that it could have been, could be, otherwise). 

From such a perspective, all looks different. We know what we know via our subjectivity - that is; our subjectivity is part of all possibilities of knowing. 

Subjectivity makes everything possible, and a change in the nature of our subjectivity affects everything. 

So a deliberate attention to developing consciousness makes a profound difference to everything - including our experience of Christianity.   

**

*Modern alienation is therefore meant-to-be just a phase; en route to a higher - more developed, indeed more divine - form of consciousness. 

There can be no political "Right" - so, what instead?

I have often noted that there can be no political Right that is genuinely distinct from the Left; unless it is rooted in religion. 

In other words, what people call the Right (including the "far Right" - whatever that may be) are from a Christian perspective and at root, just a type of Leftism - that is, they are all this-worldly and aiming at hedonic outcomes (i.e. human psychological gratification).

I believe this is true, and consequential; but whereas 15 years ago I saw religion in terms of a church, now I regard it as unavoidably personal: Romantic Christianity. 

So how then does religion work as an alternative to the pervasive Leftism? 

The answer is that the real alternative to Leftism is much, much more radical than anything ever dreamed of by any kind of The Right. 

The Right tries to keep what it likes from our Leftist Western civilization, and eradicate what it does not like; but Romantic Christianity recognizes that this process must cut very deeply indeed to eradicate the roots of evil - so deep, indeed, that our kind of civilization seems inconceivable. 

What would happen instead is also inconceivable in detail and at large - except that it would be more like a family than a state. 

However unsatisfactory this individualist/ romantic world view may seem to be, especially to those whose ideology continues to be socio-political and group-ist in nature - it does seem to be the only positive (Christian) possibility; given the way that human consciousness has developed.  

Online, free, searchable, no-frills King James Bible and Book of Mormon

Friend of this blog and administrator of the Romantic Christianity aggregator New World Island, David Earle; has made available a plain text (no frills!) version of the Bible in the Authorized Version - and done the same for The Book of Mormon. 

For those with an exploratory mind-set; this has a facility for looking at "random" verses from these volumes, and their subdivisions.   

Enjoy!

The causes of gratuitous wars

It is fascinating (as well as alarming) to see the British political system, bureaucracy and mass media; combining forces to justify and escalate full war on behalf of a remote and disconnected not-ally - including explicit and repeated demands for re-armament, a war economy, and mass military conscription (something not seen here for some 70 years). 

The same is happening over most of Europe. 

And this has been building-up for nearly two decades; by lies upon lies gradually building-up the image of a necessary cartoon super-villain that "must" be fought - or else we shall all be doomed...

(Or rather, even more doomed than we already are by the nakedly evil plans of our national rulers.) 

There have been many gratuitous wars throughout history. One of the most famous is that described in Shakespeare's Henry V; which is depicted as having been due to an insulting gift of tennis balls! 

Much more likely, the war was proximately due to the multi-generational yearning of England's usurping Norman Kings to rule in their native France - a country they have always (and still do) prefer to what they regard as the uncouth English. 

The tennis ball incident was just an excuse to "justify" something Henry wanted to do - like happened again in WWI and WWII, with their pseudo-altruistic (but not actually done) excuses of saving Belgium, and Poland. 

Plus that the Normans were addicted to war as the supreme form of sport (and they were usually very good at it). 

That kind of motivation doesn't really persist in the West, now; yet the current leadership class of the UK and Europe are very keen to engage their nations in all-out gratuitous war. 

There are similarities between past European wars and this current one; but also there are enormous differences. 

One difference is that current national and regional leaders altogether lack the personal prowess, courage and decisiveness of an heroic character like Henry V. They are, indeed, both pathetic and despicable individuals - and collectively. 

The leadership class has for decades been marinated in a cultural soup of pacifism and suicidal altruism. 

Also the mass populations of the West nowadays are (to put it mildly!) not longer trained for war (no compulsory longbow practice! The military have low status, and do not appear in public in uniforms.) - and have been thoroughly demoralized by atheism, materialism and cultural destruction. 

The Western masses are by now docile, distracted, self-destructive - utterly repelled by the idea of war insofar as they even think about it (which is very little).   

Yet, as so often; the "justification" for such a war is gratuitous, profoundly unnecessary, without any possibility of average-overall national benefit; therefore the "need" for war must be built on long-term, systematic deception and untruthfulness - and lying misrepresentation of the actual purposes. 

What interests me is the different motivations that seem to be operating at different levels of The System. 

At the lower and middle levels (the managerial and intellectual classes); the push for war seems to be just another manifestation of their system of incentives - such people behave in ways that they believe will provide them with the greatest prosperity, security, and status among their kind.

When The System is set-up such that supporting war is advantageous to such persons, they will support war - in the usual way that they "support" any other System-priority such as sustainability, antiracism, "equality"; that is to say; they approve and develop and inhabit bureaucratic structures and processes; which are supposedly directed towards that end.   

At a higher level - say, that of national leadership of large institutions, organizations, corporations - there is need for individuals who will actively construct false narratives, suppress truths, engage in multiple immoral and illegal activities; so at this level the motivations need to be cruder, more personally corrupting, more consciously sinful. 

These middle-leadership-level people need (at some level of awareness) to give their allegiance, or at least their obedience, to the strategies of evil purpose. 

This is why we can observe their personal corruption; their strange emotions and reactions, their snake eyes or zombie eyes - all evidencing that they have-been through some kind of shock-and-awe, brain-washing, blackmailing, or spirit-breaking - that guarantees their allegiance. 

For such people; engineering gratuitous war is just "politics as usual". Plus, war has a direct personal appeal of providing for greater opportunities for power-grabbing, abuses with impunity, enacting revenges and torments, self-enrichment and self-gratification - and suchlike abuses, which are always made easier by war. 

Beyond this level of societal control and war-mongering, I am not aware of the identities of human personnel involved; and the spiritual powers (demons) become dominant. 

And because these are unembodied spirits, their motivations are different from those of humans. 

These spirits with direct affiliation to the side of evil are primarily engaged in a spiritual war. 

The realities of spiritual warfare are strategically focused on the damnation of Men in accordance with the motivation of their leader (i.e. Satan); but also are tactically motivated (more individually, in the shorter term) by a kind of vampirism of spiritual energy - an enjoyment in feeding-off the evils of the human condition, and from the destruction of souls.  

At this highest and more strategic level; the purpose of war is very different from that of national leaders. 

For instance; the strategists ideal is a war that is unwinnable, interminable, and constantly escalating into greater extremes of mutual destruction, resentment, lying - and despair. 

Such a war would be intended grow to include as many as possible of the national leadership class who engineered it; as well as the managerial/ intellectual class who justified it to the masses. 

Indeed these bureaucrats of war (i.e. the national institutional leaders etc.) provide greater spiritual energies to vampirize exactly because they have given their souls to evil; than would the unwilling, unenthusiastic, driven-masses who would experience the greatest sufferings and casualties.  

 

How great was the Red Baron - Manfred von Richthofen?

Manfred von Richthofen - the Red Baron - was the top scoring ace in World War I, with 80 confirmed kills; a number that seems likely to be essentially valid.  

The greatness of the Red Baron was always contested (or, at least, ambivalent) in the British air force - Royal Flying Corps/ Royal Air Force* - both at the time, and since; with people on both sides.

On the one side, Manfred vR was proven as a very good pilot and (perhaps even more important) an excellent marksman. 

On the other side; once he had become a German national hero, he fought with tremendous advantages that were not available to anybody else - especially not on the Allies side. 

The Red Baron was a combat theoretician and inspiring leader; who devised methods for achieving successful results in combat under the most favourable conditions, with the minimum losses on his side. 

He would fly at high altitude with a very large "circus" of other scout (i.e. fighter) pilots - larger than any groupings that the Allies were using, so that von Richthofen would nearly always have the vital air combat advantages of height and outnumbering. 

As leader of this circus; MvR had several (not just one) other pilots "covering his tail", so he could concentrate on downing his chosen victim, without the usual (for the Allies) need to be vigilant. 

Furthermore, the Baron benefitted from the usual German strategy of staying on the German side of the lines, and waiting for the Allies to come to him. 

Also he would usually avoid combat unless under favourable conditions (especially height advantage and numerical superiority). There was a relatively low threshold for breaking-off an engagement if it was not going well or when height superiority had been lost; rather than fighting it out from a position of mere parity. 

What this amounted to is that the Red Baron was certainly an excellent fighter pilot, but that his supremacy in numbers of kills was attained substantially because of his prolonged survival - and this was due to the unique advantages he fought under.

These advantages were necessarily obtained at the cost of limiting and reducing the combat effectiveness of the German air force in general, and Richthofen's circus in particular. 

By contrast, the RFC (under the aggressive leadership of High Trenchard) had a much higher-risk "offensive" strategy, of seeking out the enemy; and taking-on other formations even when disadvantaged by being over enemy lines, lesser height, and fewer numbers. 

The Allied air forces were used primarily in support of the Army (their primary role was reconnaissance and artillery ranging), and were often sacrificed to the needs on the ground. For example the RFC/ RAF played a decisive role in containing the massive German counter-attack of March 1918 by close infantry support, bombing and strafing throughout daylight hours - but at the cost of very heavy losses of men and machines; mainly to ground fire. 

In contrast; the German command seem to have regarded the Red Baron as providing most value to the war effort, as a national symbol of heroic individual prowess - his personal survival was therefore important, so he was undoubtedly protected.    

It is unsurprising that some RFC/RAF regarded von Richthofen's supreme numerical success as significantly "manufactured" and thereby artificial - despite his undoubted excellence as a fighting flyer. 

This must have seemed confirmed when the Red Baron's death was caused by breaking his own rules of engagement (perhaps due to combat fatigue?); when he followed his intended victim across to the British side of the lines, alone and without anyone to guard his tail, and down to a very low level where he became vulnerable to rifle and machine gun fire. 

Yet these were fighting conditions that most RFC/ RAF pilots were compelled to endure on a daily basis. 

In the event; it was some unclear combination of being attacked from behind by an Allied fighter, and/or ground fire, that led to the Red Baron's demise.  

The distinctive red Fokker Triplane came down on the Allied side of the lines, with Baron Manfred already dead (probably from a single bullet) - where his body was treated with respect by the RAF, and accorded a full military funeral.

That night, some British Pilots held a party in honour of the Red Baron, and toasted his health. Others refused to participate - including the great Irish ace Mick Mannock, who was made very angry by his squadron's celebration.   

In conclusion, I think both sides were correct. Manfred von Richthofen was a great leader, tactician, and ace; and also the magnitude of his achievement was significantly manufactured, and the result of unique privileges. 

*The Royal Flying Corps was part of the British Army. Combined with the smaller Royal Naval Air Service, it became the first independent air military, the Royal Air Force, on 1st April 1918 - smack in the middle of the first massive German attack of that year.

This post was stimulated by reading Aces Falling: War above the trenches, 1918; by Peter Hart (2008).

Shakespeare's identity revisited

Shakespeare's birthplace in Stratford - 

a lovely place to visit on a sunny day

As happens recurrently, there is a resurgence of the argument that the bloke from Stratford upon Avon could not have written the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. 

This will never cease; because details of WS's life are so sparse, because authorship in those days involved a great deal of copying and adapting, irregularities of spelling and nomenclature; and also because some of the (lesser) Shakespeare-attributed works are probably by others or done in collaborations (as has emerged in mainstream scholarship, over the years - for instance the Passionate Pilgrim poems).  

Nonetheless, all the people that I have read who make this argument against Shakespeare, have been arguing from what I regard as false premises, as I have explained before. 

Firstly; Shakespeare is so much better than the second best writer in English Literature (whoever that might be, which has always been disputed) that there cannot be any argument of a kind which suggests that Shakespeare of Stratford was incapable of writing something - but somebody else was. 

If we genuinely recognize the quality of Shakespeare, then nobody was capable of writing it - in the sense that there has never been anybody else in the same league.

So no alternative identification as author is any more plausible than Shakespeare of Stratford.  

Secondly; the quality of the works attributed to Shakespeare mean that the author was a first-rank genius; and it is not valid to apply the probabilities that apply to normal people, to the work of a major genius.  

The example I used was Isaac Newton, another first-rank genius - but one whose life is well documented. 

It is striking that Newton's actual achievement is impossible on the basis of what is known of his life. 

The fact that Newton's achievement was not predictable on the basis of his biography, yet he did it anyway; is evidence that when dealing with major genius, normal predictions and probabilities are meaningless. 

There is - as I said initially - a mystery about Shakespeare as the author of the best attributed dramatic works. 

Yet I find the usual narrative of a Grammar School boy from Stratford; from a rebellious, recusant Catholic family on his mother's side, and the rest of it - to be rich, coherent and satisfying. 

After all the caveats regards particular works or parts of works; to me, Shakespeare of Stratford rings-true. 

Prosperity Gospel Lite

Everybody rightly makes fun of the pseudo-Christian preachers of a "prosperity gospel", when their message becomes too crude, short-termist and monetary - e.g. those US televangelists who state that if you contribute to their church, you will get a better paid jobs, or suchlike. 

But the prosperity gospel in a "Lite" version is actually very common among Christians; I mean the belief that those who lead their lives in accordance with Christian beliefs and practices will survive and thrive in socio-economic ways. 

For instance; proponents of PGL may state or imply that being Christian will help you to have a successful business, get the girl/s, be a "real" man, attract admiration from "real" men etc.

And the flip-side of Prosperity Gospel Lite are negative assumptions such as "get woke, go broke" and the assumption that leftist men are despised by the desirable girls. It is PGL to imply that conforming to the mainstream ideology usually leads to failure.     

The major theme of justification for the PGL is that Christianity is the Truth, and that living in accordance with reality is likely to be more successful than a deluded existence of obedience to a false and virtual world. 

At root, all this is false, because it is a roundabout way of asserting that Christianity is expedient. 

It has never been true, except insofar as State Christianity was sometimes, in some places, sufficiently powerful, true and uncorrupt; that a life of faithful church-obedience could be a reliable route to worldly success. 

But in our current overwhelmingly atheistic, materialistic, leftist world; the expedient path of worldly triumph leads away from Christianity - at least over the predictable short to medium-term.

Optimism about success in this world is one thing; being-Christian is another. 

Christians need to be clear about what their religion actually is about, primarily and essentially; and that is our positive desire and intent to attain salvation: resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Implications about this mortal existence flow backwards from this post-mortal intent.

There is no general reason why "being a Christian" would necessarily lead towards a "successful" (high status, wealthy, comfortable, pleasurable, healthy, pain-free) mortal life; and indeed there are plenty of reasons why it would not. 

  

A note on the static implications of divine omniscience

I have harped-on about the problem of regarding God's omniscience as necessary and definitive, and what malign effects this assumption has for Christians. 

I was thinking more on this matter, when it struck me with forcible conviction that omniscience is part of an assumption that reality is ultimately "static" - by which I mean that if God is to know everything (past, present, future), then divine creation must be completed and unchanging in an ultimate sense. 

The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians - if not for strict monotheists such as Jews and Muslims; and insofar as omniscience is taken seriously and rigorously; it pushes Christianity (both in its deep theory and in societal practice) towards a pure monotheism by which freedom/agency, and creation/ development are foreknown and bounded.

Indeed, it seems logically to collapse towards a Hinduism or Buddhism that regards this experienced world of change, time, apparent freedom, apparent creation - as maya, illusion; not really-real.  

And this world of illusion is very difficult to square with faith in a God that is Good and loving to us each as persons. 

Why would such a God, that is omniscient, create a fake-world inhabited with deluded creatures?  

The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians -- incoherence of theology is always a bad thing, especially when that incoherence is so up-front and obvious, yet denied and obfuscated by incomprehensible/nonsensical abstractions. 

Omniscience isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, quite the reverse! And is starkly contradicted by the eye-witness narrative and teachings of Fourth Gospel, and most of the other reported Biblical accounts of Jesus. 

It makes me wonder what Good reasons (there are plenty of bad ones) could exist why so many orthodox Christian intellectuals, for so many centuries, have absolutely insisted-upon such a monstrous doctrine - such a gratuitous stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ?    

"AI" in public discourse: It's a case of persons, or else nihilism

God is personal, and human beings are persons too - and ultimately reality is a matter of relations between persons, or more exactly Beings (alive, conscious, purposive etc). 

Life in 2025 is pushing us towards either a clear recognition of this reality, or else a collapse into nihilism, then despair. 

Inwardly to reject the so-called "AI" push/takeover ought to be a no-brainer for a discerning Christian; but way too many have failed to recognize this latest threat - which means they have taken the side of consciousness-denying abstraction, rather than personhood. 

AI is therefore a Test. And, as with all the Litmus Tests, un-repented failure in one Test strongly leads to further ramifications of the problem (to more sins of other kinds) - and I sometimes observe a remarkably rapid collapse into general failure of discernment. 

To deny the qualitative gulf between AI and the personal, goes with a (typically "optimistic") denial of the realities of our civilization. 

Once we have edited-out the absolute necessity of individual human beings from our definition of discourse - inevitably, there will be adverse consequences spreading-out from this un-repented failure - metastasizing: forming secondary spiritual dysfunctions. 

The "problem" is that to reject AI means to put oneself outwith the mainstream - which is infiltrated and polluted with fake-discourse. 

And it is trying to spread, all the time. Already this blog has experienced several AI pseudo-commenters*.

The answer is to reject the modern value of "openness" including to become suspicious of "strangers" as being probably-malign, in the same way that happens in tribal societies.

Trust must be "earned", including being trusted to be human and free; rather than mechanical and automatic.  

And therefore some humans will, in the nature of things, be rejected as AI - not least because many/most people in public discourse are already operating mentally (and spiritually) at the same level as AI, so as to be indistinguishable from an algorithm.  

But that is their problem - not mine. 

*An increasing proportion of public media discourse consists of AI-generated text interacting with AI-generated comments/ reviews/ discussions. The truly pitiful thing; is those human beings who are paying attention to it.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" versus the actual person of Mother in Heaven

While I assume that God is Dyadic (a Heavenly Father and Mother) - this is something I have not really grasped, not does it correspond much with daily experience. 

Partly this may be because we Christians are intended to relate primarily to Jesus, rather than the primary creator; but partly it is because I tend to get "hung-up" on inaccurate and unhelpful assumptions relating to principles, rather than persons. 

An example of an unhelpful/ misleading conceptualization would be that of Coleridge's "polarity" between "two contrary forces, the one of which tends to expand infinitely ["masculine], while the other strives to apprehend or find itself in this infinity [feminine]". 

One such assumption is that habit of thinking of male and female in terms of being specific exemplifications of those abstractions: "masculinity" and "femininity"... Abstractions that are somehow floating unattached beyond time and space, and sort-of imposing-themselves-upon Beings (as it were to make them men, or women)...! 

Really; things must be otherwise. 

Our Heavenly Parents are those two Beings who (in actuality, not by any prior necessity) first committed to eternal love; and on that basis began divine creation. 

It is their two natures, originating as two Beings, that ramify through all of creation since.  

Thus male and female both structure and power creation; but in this personal way - derived from actual living, conscious, developing Beings; and not therefore in terms of abstract metaphysical forces or fields or tendencies. 

As (always?) with metaphysical realities, it is not possible to derive the metaphysics from empirical specifics (such as actual men and women) - nor is it possible to derive any particular empirical specifics from the metaphysical assumptions. 

If the universe truly is derived from a dyadic God; then that universe includes everything that exists, has existed, or could exist - and this reality (this Primary Creation) in which we dwell; includes not just divine creation, but also entropy/death and purposive evil. 

What this seems to mean - among many other things! - is that our experience of Mother in Heaven ought not to be pre-conceptualized in terms of an ideal earthly-mortal Mother, nor any other archetypal female conceptualization. 

Of course, if that is what we have decided in advance that we will find, then that is what we will find - and any female archetype really is there; but only as a selective, hence distorted, part of the reality. 

This stricture applies both to Goddess conceptualizations; and to the Blessed Virgin Mary - whom I regard as ultimately a selective and distorted representation of the reality of the actual person of Mother in Heaven.

(Albeit the veneration/worship of the Mary, Mother of Jesus has - in some times and places - been very valuable as such; and IMO far preferable overall to an exclusively "masculine" conceptualization of God.)

I think the difficulties of you and I experiencing the person of Mother in Heaven are therefore partly due to the nature of God the Creator - who is not personal in this world, in the way that Jesus Christ is personal; partly it is due to the ultimately-dyadic nature of God (and the consequent difficulty of disambiguating Father and Mother, who are necessarily participating-in each-other); and partly due to our usually false expectations concerning what She is like.   

So, what is She like? 

The best answer is: She is like who-She-is. 

...Which can be known - as here on earth - by personal experience, by getting-to-know a person. 

But She is not to be known in terms of exemplifying a list of supposed-female attributes, nor can any list of attributes validly communicate her reality.

Was Boudicca's revolt originally intended as a distraction from the Roman annihilation of Druidry?

"Bolshy Boudica", a British heroine, 

as depicted by TV Horrible Histories 

The story of Boudicca's revolt against the Roman occupiers in AD 61 is well known; and it is usually explained as having been caused by Queen Boudicca having been whipped and her daughters raped by agents of Nero. 

But another idea struck me while reading Geoffrey Ashe's history of Glastonbury, King Arthur's Avalon (1957). Ashe emphasizes that the Druids were a major obstacle to Roman rule in Gaul, due to the proximity of the Druidic colleges in Britain, which Julius Caesar said was the centre of Druidry. 

Druids seem to have been an elite and secretive caste, with a very long (twenty year) initiatory apprenticeship into an organization that combined many functions such as priests, prophets and augers, healers and repositories of history and lore. 

In sum, British society could not function without Druids. 

Ashe makes the plausible suggestion that the destruction of Druidry was in fact the major motivation for the successful Claudian invasion and occupation of Britain from AD 43.

It is therefore very  likely that Druid control and coordination was extremely strong in Britain; since they were the grey-eminence rulers of the British regional kings, a national organization that bridged between the regional Kingdoms. 

If their destruction was indeed the Roman aim, then from AD 43 onwards, the Druids were fighting not just to retain their power, but their lives. 

This danger to the Druids became potentially terminal in AD 60 into 61, when the Romans had pushed the Druids back into the Island of Mona (modern Anglesey) off the north coast of Wales, and the Romans were preparing an invasion. 

The Romans then planned to invade and occupy Wales, thereby completing the conquest of Druidic Britain. 

My suggestion is that - as this threat to Druidry developed, and the Romans sent their legions to the north-west of Britain to attack Mona - the Druids sent word to Boudicca instructing her to start a rebellion in the South East of the country. 

In other words, Boudicca's rebellion may have started as a military distraction, intended to divert Roman resources away from their plans to destroy Druidry. 

The Boudicca diversion, if that is what it was, was partially and temporarily successful. 

It did not save Mona, nor the Druids gathered there - perhaps the rebellion was too late; or perhaps the Roman's anti-Druid strategic priority trumped their desire to save the Romanized populace of south east England?

In the event, the Romans were able to win their battle against Mona, invade the island, kill the Druids and everybody else, and burn the sacred groves.

But thanks to Boudicca, the Romans could not consolidate their victory - not yet. The island of Mona was not occupied. The conquest of Wales was delayed. 

The legions were compelled to return to the South East, where they defeated the Boudicca rebellion - which had by then grown to enormously destructive proportions. In their usual fashion the Romans proceeded to crush the responsible populations, in order to deter and prevent any similar event recurring. 

But this took time and resources. So that Mona was not occupied by the Romans until another sixteen years had passed, and mainland Wales was not occupied until AD 78.

So, if Boudicca's rebellion was a distraction motivated by the Druids, it proved very costly and only temporary in effect. 

On the other hand, Boudicca did kill many tens of thousands of Romans; and destroyed Colchester, St Albans and London. 

And she delayed the conquest of Wales - and thereby probably delayed the final annihilation of the socio-political structures of Druidry - by a significant period. 

In sum - what I am suggesting here is that the causality of Boudicca and the Druids of Mona may be the reverse of how these are usually explained. 

Traditionally; the explanation is that Boudicca rebelled because the Roman legions were occupied in the opposite corner of the country in destroying the Druids. The rebellion was allowed by the attack on Druidry. 

What I am instead saying is that Boudicca rebelled under instruction from the Druids, with the intention of bringing the Roman back from Mona: in hope of saving the Druids. 

The idea is that Boudicca rebellion was instructed, not allowed. She was not taking advantage of the absence of Roman legions; she was instead intending to divert the legions from destroying the Druids.  

The Absolute stupidity of (totalitarian) bureaucracy

There is an absolute and ineradicable stupidity at the heart of The System: the bureaucracy that controls our totalitarian society. 

This is something that I observed first-hand in the year and a half I worked in the National Health Service administration. What is characteristic of the stupidity is a conviction that because we need it to be so, then it can be so*. 

When The System finds some-thing necessary, then The System will believe that it is possible. 

Indeed, The System cannot comprehend that what it regards as necessary, is actually impossible - because The System only takes regard of itself. 

The System is its own world; and works by assuming that itself is the whole world. 

So that when The System recognizes something as necessary, or even as simply desirable - then The System also automatically-intrinsically regards that something as possible. 

We see this characteristic everywhere - or, at least, we can see it if we stand outwith The System, which apparently not all that many people can or do (or even want to do). 

We see it at the large scale and at the small scale of bureaucratic operations. 

At the large scale there is the colossal socio-economic phenomenon of the Global Climate Warming/ Change Emergency; by which something not-a-problem, and anyway immeasurable (i.e. the temperature of the earth/ocean surface/ atmosphere is not measurable coherently); and which has unknown determinants; is claimed by The System to be understood, predictable, and controllable (by The System) down to fractions of a degree... So The System regards the climate problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

On a smaller scale there is the current wave of AI ("Artificial Intelligence"), which The System believes it needs in order to exert what The System regards as the necessary degree of monitoring and control over the mass population. And the fact that "AI" cannot by its nature possibly work in the real world for such purposes, and therefore it does not work; is unknowable by The System. So The System regards the AI problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

And implementation of such schemes is also something that The System knows how to do, to its own satisfaction, by the means it has generated internally. 

So that the actually accelerating collapse of social order and capability in the world outside The System, and that this collapse is actually caused by The System, simply does not register; because it is not part of The System.

From inside The System, the only "real" problems are ones of implementation: the problem that "people" simply aren't properly doing... whatever it is that The System currently wants them to do. 

Which means that the only "real" problem for The System is that of monitoring and controlling "people". 

And thus the circle is completed.    

 *The specific instance when this became clear was when I was questioning a government minister in a meeting at the Health Authority. The NHS bureaucracy had set as a numerical-monitored-target, that national suicide rates should and would be reduced. I pointed-out that this was nonsensical, because nobody knew how national suicide rates could be reduced. The minister rather impatiently explained to me that it was necessary that Psychiatric services had a target (or else they would be neglected), and this was the only suitable measurable outcome; so now it was "up to us" to discover how to reach that target - i.e. how to reduce national suicide levels in line with the targets. In practice, The System generated some (totally conjectural) methods that it believed ought to work. These were accepted (eagerly) because something must be done. The hypothetical notion was, basically, prescribing more antidepressant drugs (because that must stop suicides, right?... Ignoring that the SSRI drugs actually increase suicides, which was what happened in the real world). And so drug-pushing was the policy which got implemented. At least until The System changed the targets, for reasons of its own.

Note added: The above is a soft version of the Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann - which is summarized and developed in the Appendix of my (pre-Christian, and leftist) book The Modernization Imperative.  

Deity is a person

When I think back across my conversion from (almost) lifelong atheism to Christianity, it seems clear that the biggest barrier was that God the creator is a person. 

Even in my youth I was prepared, even keen, to adopt abstract deistic principles, and assumptions about the directional or cohesive structure of reality...

But the idea of the creator as a person was an assumption that I ruled out - quickly, effortlessly - as obviously absurd, obviously childish. 

Yet now I regard creator-as-person as an absolutely foundational and essential fact (and assumption). 

Spawn of Hartley Hare?

My life seems to have been plagued by Hartleys; which I blame upon that archetypal Hartley: Hartley Hare - who I tentatively presume to have been a transdimensional and temporally omnipresent being; capable of exerting influence of many kinds, by many means.  

Such were my thoughts when I saw notice that our latest local Church of England Bishopess is yet another Hartley (Helen-Anne). The resemblance to HH is obvious:

Then there was, of course, that old fly-fisherman JR Hartley - whom I have mentioned before:

And I have also referenced Hartley Coleridge (who was born in the most boring town in the world, and whose erstwhile home I have stayed in) - eldest son of Samuel Taylor; who also has the look of Hartley Hare about him:

A malign presence in mid-childhood was the ubiquitous product Hartley's New Jam, especially its strawberry manifestation; which (from memory) was low on fruit, high on pectin; and relied heavily on various flavourings and preservatives and shocking pink food colouring. A typical Hartley-inspired product, as the makers signal by their almost demonic depiction of the Hartley-childrens' faces:

 If my experience is anything to go by; whenever you encounter a Hartley - beware. 

On the appreciation of beautiful experiences, truth-telling, or moral-acts... Doing Good is not necessarily "a good thing"...

A problem we have - a real problem! - is that "doing good" does not mean that good is done. 

Of course, in practice, this was usually only a loose-ish connection. But overall it made sense to talk in terms of virtuous or moral actions, of beautiful artistic products and performances, of truths (from science, philosophy, history etc) that were valuable of themselves.  

But nowadays there is a very substantial disconnect - up to and including opposition between Doing Good, and being good. 

To be blunt; a lot of the generally-accepted "good stuff" in life (especially the stuff that we get to hear about) is nowadays produced by people who are actively on the side of evil. 

This Is A Problem - and one that challenges the usual ways of thinking; not least because it often means that the bits of good which are done, are often/usually used for net-evil purposes. 

Such has always been the most effective form of propaganda - e.g. is the elements of truth within propaganda that make the lies believable. It is the experience of beauty that makes the ugliness of the message seem appealing and convincing.

Yet, at the same time; when the System/ Matrix/ Black Iron Prison mixes Good with its evil, truth with lies, beauty with vileness, virtue with manipulation; it also thereby somewhat undermines itself. So the combination is unstable. 

On the other hand, at the level of institutions; things have becoming more evil for long enough to show that this is not enough to cause self-correction. 

There has been no pendulum-swing back towards net-Good motivations. There are no grounds for complacency! - and it seems entirely likely/ possible that things will continue to get worse, as the underlying motivations of more and more participants continue to get worse.   

And when the civilization is totalitarian (as ours is) then any aspects of truth, beauty or virtue that require resources or organization, anything involving publicity or media - will normally and mostly be harnessed to the agenda of evil. 

Thus, in the spiritual war of this world, Doing Good (in an obvious and public way) is nearly-all on the side against God; and that which is truly motivated by Good tends to be invisible and unappreciated at a cultural level - maybe known only among the circle of family or friendship.

The situation is that there is still a sense in which truth/ beauty/ virtue are as real as ever they were; yet there is also a sense in which they have - in practice - been weaponized against God and Divine Creation. 

For this Not to happen, and for public-Good again to evoke inner-good; we moderns of 2025 must become more consciously aware of the situation, we must make discernments and choices. 

We need to be able to know what is good, and distinguish the good from the evil uses being made of it. 

Our thinking needs to be active and purposive; not passive, not dreamy-drifting. 

Returning to my recent experience of choral evensong... 

To give ourselves up to a contemplative-appreciative state of immersion in external "Good" - on the basis that external Good can-must-and-shall "do us good"; is actually, in practice, to open-our-selves to manipulation and exploitation by the system of evil. 

If, instead, we yield to the overall experience like floating in a warm bath, half-asleep, with eyes closed; we will be absorbing toxin through our dilated pores, even as our minds are beguiled! 

It is a matter of spiritual trust, and who can or should be trusted here-and-now. So long as there is a likelihood that the "provider" of Good experiences is on the wrong side in the spiritual war; for so long we must aim to exercise continual discernment. And be ready to repent when (as inevitably happens, sometimes) we fail to do so.  

Thoughts after attending sung Evensong at King's Bollege, Bambridge

I recently attended choral evensong at King's Bollege Bambridge - which is perhaps the most famous choir, and choral venue, in the world; thanks to its many decades of BBC world broadcasting on Christmas Eve.

They certainly lived up to their reputation, with a beautiful sound and extraordinary precision of diction and intonation. 

I was particularly fortunate in that the music was provided by what are - for me - the very best of choral music - viz that of the "Renaissance" era, including the English Tudor composers Byrd and Weelkes. 

The event provoked some interesting considerations. 

First, although it was a a liturgical event in a chapel; it was not really Christian, but a high quality classical music concert that happened to have free entry and a famously fine architectural setting. 

Consequently, a very high proportion of the very large "congregation" were tourists; and anyway I knew that the clergy and choir were not really Christian, but instead and inevitably mainstream Church-of-England bureaucratic-leftist.  

They have to be, because otherwise such a lavish and high quality event could not be provided (as it is) on almost a daily basis and for pretty much the whole year. 

This requires a colossal degree of planning, funding, and sheer organization that can only arise from institutions that are thoroughly (and successfully) embedded in the standard workings of the Totalitarian State, with its vast monitoring and regulatory apparatus. 

As well as the upkeep and maintenance of the chapel itself; the running of a choral school - and its recruitment and training of boys and adult singer, is an enormous work in itself, with traditions and practices spanning many decades - indeed centuries.  

The Evensong was therefore the culmination and continuation of a high civilization; which is itself absolutely dependent on the apparatus of the State. In the past, that State was Christian (officially, and to various degrees in practice). 

However; as of 2025 the UK State is integral to the Global Totalitarian System - with its overwhelmingly evil motivations, policies and plans. Even among the evil-states of The West, the UK is striving to become the most destructive in a specialist fashion (terror, sabotage etc), on an international scale. 

Therefore, the beauties of King's Bollege Evensong come at a cost, and that cost is high; not only in terms of money and resources, but in terms of all the above. 

The cost is one of willing collaboration in systematic evil... Of course, these costs are not all evil (nothing is), and those within usually justify themselves in that basis - such as, in this instance, virtues such as the high aesthetic standards, and hard work. 

But overall, overwhelmingly, and increasingly evil - for sure. 

In order to be allowed (and enabled) to put on high-level aesthetic events like the Evensong I attended; the elements that go to make it possible (the university, college, chorister's school, all manner of charitable and artistic groups); must all consent to (and, increasingly positively endorse) most of that large and increasing range of ideological programs that characterize the modern State - and which are innately hostile to God and divine creation and, of their essence, materialistic, reductionist, opposed to beauty and quality. 

There has been a Faustian bargain pursued by the academic and artistic Establishment for many decades; by which The System has permitted aesthetic (but not religious-spiritual) values to continue (including in a self-identified) Christian context in return for ideological servitude. 

But the scope of that aesthetic activity has inevitably been been shrinking overall - and the materialist-demands and value-corruptions have incrementally escalated.

Anyone who attends a church, university, art gallery, museum, theatre, or concert hall nowadays - is far more likely to be confronted by crude political propaganda, than high aesthetic or scholarly values. 

If current motivations and belief-realities persist, and trends continue, the only-possible, hence inevitable, end of this process will be one of spoilage and destruction of all that is beautiful. 

There are many and powerful external factors that would annihilate King's Evensong very rapidly and completely. Such things have often happened before.   

But even without destruction from the waxing alien imperatives of many kinds; since the civilization that makes it all possible is now consumed by self-hatred and a covertly suicidal impulse.

If it survives external destruction; then an end will come from internal factors 

The paradox is that the many value-inversions and materialist metaphysics that had to be embraced by those people and institutions who make a King's Evensong possible; are exactly what will ensure that it becomes impossible, and will cease to happen. 

Benefit of the doubt? Supporting net-evil

A lot of self-identified Christians believe that it is right and "Christian" to give institutions and powerful persons "the benefit of the doubt" when they claim good motivations. Or even when they espouse bad intentions.

This is assumed to be good in principle or at least harmless.

Not so, because when an institution i corrupt, untruthful, net-evil, then to fail to discern such reality, to support it; is to join with the side that opposes God, divine creation, and The Good - and thereby oneself to become spiritually corrupted.

Surely we ought to support Good not evil? How can it be right to lend spiritual (maybe material) aid to Satan?

Why not set-aside manipulative and self-annihilating propaganda that tends to ur damnation. We should instead discern, and keep learning - and when we err, we should repent.

Biggles Learns to Fly, revisited

 About four years ago, I picked up secondhand a few of the first published Biggles books (by WE Johns), which triggered a serious revival of interest in WWI, then WWII, military aircraft. 

Since then, I have read many scores of memoirs and histories; and watched movies and documentaries by the dozens.

Going back to re-read what began it all, I find that, in particular, Biggles Learns to Fly holds up very well indeed; in terms of being an accurate account of actual experiences of the WWI pilots.

Naturally, since the books were aimed at boys, there is more concentrated adventure and humour. But everything described is based on reality, gathered from numerous sources - personal experience, discussion with colleagues, and published accounts.

The style and stories are also enjoyable, and emotionally powerful - stresses, horrors and deaths are there in proportion - and given proper weight.

Yet the essential heroism and chivalry of the pioneer pilots is dominant - as is right and proper.

Change and changelessness - the oldest philosophical problem

The earliest recorded ("Pre-Socratic) ancient Greek philosophers were metaphysicians who seem to have been focused on explaining change and changelessness - which was the most fundamental, and/or how the two were related and interacted*. 

Since change is so obvious, why did they feel a need to impute or explain changelessness? 

The answer is that if all is change then there can be no purpose, meaning, knowledge, no values - just a kind of chaos 

And then one needs to explain why we spontaneously and tenaciously assume that there are such things as purpose, meaning etc.

In sum; there is explanatory need for something other-than-change if we are to have purpose, meaning, values; there would need to be a sense in which there is both directional change and eternal preservation in reality. 

For Christians, in particular, there must be a way of understanding how eternal Good is possible when there is change. 

When we start (as I do) with the assumption of Beings as the "units of eternal reality" we need to explain how Beings - which are alive and conscious, hence dynamic and exist in time - can both change purposively and also eternally preserve that which is Good.

If Beings must both change and retain; this implies the expansion of Beings - because beings must accumulate as well as change. 

And if this is to be eternal, Beings must be expansible without limit. 

Tis is easily understandable by the analogy of development - that is, the development of an organism, for example an animal, from its formation by fertilization through to mature adulthood. Such a process of development includes both directional change and is also cumulative.

For instance, in an animal there is innate or instinctive behaviour which is "given"; and there is also learning added-to (and interacting-with) the instinctive; and learning must be retained, and accumulates. 

All that we need to add to the analogy is that the organism (or Being) potentially is able to continue this development without limit, and everlastingly. 

That cannot happen during mortal life on this earth; but it is (I believe) what happens in Heaven, when we are resurrected eternally. 

 

*I get this mostly from FC Copleston's History of Philosophy, reinforced by Rudolf Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy. 

The literal impossibility of putting theory into practice in Life

Theory is always and necessarily a simplified model of reality. Extremely simplified - because everything in the universe is left-out, except what is specifically included in the theory. 

If you think about it, this must be the case - the vastness and unboundedness of life (which is not really divided spatio-temporally, except into Beings) - otherwise there would be no point in having a theory!

A good theory renders graspable the most significant aspects (for the current purpose) of that vastly interconnected web of communication and interaction which is Everything. 

This is why even the very best theories can never be put into practice. 

It explains why we always come-up against the intractable problem of actually living by our understanding of God, creation and salvation.   

And, in Christianity, even the true-est and real-est and most-good theology cannot be put into practice in Life. 

Life is just so much greater than any theory!

When we try (and many have tried) to implement theoretical understanding, to live by The Book, The Rules or whatever - then it will fail.

This does not mean that theory is worthless, yet it never is the truth. It does not mean that theory is useless in some particular practice, yet theory should never be a blueprint. 

(For instance: Even the most perfect system of law is unjust; unless interpreted by a good and wise judge - who takes into account the many ways in which the law fails to describe reality.) 

However, we cannot just dispense with theorizing; because we live inside theory. Indeed, we live inside totalitarianism; which is a theory of everything, that denies any limitation, which tends always to encroach everywhere. 

This is because totalitarianism is rooted in negation, in the double negative values of a theory being against itself - a self-consuming, self-destroying theory of all. 

Our problem is to escape from the habitual thinking of the inculcated self-tyranny of this System, which theory we actually accept by socialization; because the totalitarian theory dominates public discourse, and we are compelled to live-by-it in most (and ever more) areas of life. 

So one value of theorizing is if it helps us break free from the mind-control of the actual-and-evil theory under which we Live. 

But whatever alternative theory we discover or devise (even the best imaginable theory of Christianity); we shall come up against the necessary fact that our theory is ultimately wrong because grossly incomplete; and cannot (as well as should-not) be implemented as a blueprint for Life and Living. 

The ultimate goal is perhaps always to go beyond theory to live in freedom in accordance with divine creation - not by theory but by intuition, divine inspiration, by knowing reality. 

In the meanwhile, in this mortal life on earth, we must continue to use theories; but should strive not be used-by theories.  

"The poor always ye have with you" - Jesus's harsh rejection of double-negative theology

John: 12: 3-8. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus is both impatient and decisive in his rejection of Judas Iscariot's attempt to impose the deadly trap of double-negative theology on Jesus's message. 

The danger of this demonic lure is evident. 

If Christianity becomes primarily a matter of dealing with the sufferings of this-world, there will be no end or limit to such activities, such a mind-set. 

To live for "compassion" is un-Christian and spiritually lethal; because it excludes the ultimate life-purpose of salvation*. 

"The Poor" of one sort or another (including our poor-selves, our own sufferings and needs!) will always be with us, their needs will always be present and, unless a higher and positive life-purpose is in place and dominant, will always usurp the purpose of salvation  - as the present self-identified-Christian churches exemplify with such horrible clarity. 

Only from the primacy of a commitment to following Jesus Christ through death to Heavenly resurrection; is it spiritually virtuous to consider the endless, boundless, intractable problems of this mortal life and world. 

And then only from personal love - because abstract, universal, unconditional love is another net to catch the devil's prey**. 

Make no mistake about it: we are talking about a Satanic snare! 

To live double-negatively in order to alleviate the ills of this mortal life is evil - even-more evil is to advocate this, to push an "altruistic" ideology.

Jesus's harsh, aggressive, repulsion of Judas's concern for The Poor should help make this evident. 

+++

* That it was not just Judas's hypocritical motivation for helping the poor that Jesus was rejecting, is evidenced by the larger scope of Jesus's explanation. 

** That promiscuous altruism and alleviation of the ills of this world is indeed a devilish trap, lure and snare; is indirectly suggested by the way in which not-Christians and anti-Christians are so addicted to making accusations of an un-Christian attitude; if or when any Christian person or institution fails to lend public support to a socio-political scheme that presents-itself as intended to alleviate some species of suffering. 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat...

 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat! 

Beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! 

All shall love me... and despair!

H/T - My wife; for the idea. 

The spiritual failure of All objective Systems (including institutions and corporations, including churches)

What we have witnessed over the past century is the failure of each and all Systems to be sufficiently spiritual that they can avoid the gravitational pull of corruption by totalitarianism (which is intrinsically evil). 

In other words, all Systems - which include all churches, and every other kind of spiritual organization (such as Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophical Society) have become detached from the individual and personal sources which were their only link with the spiritual. 

In making religion or spirituality into a System - the essence has been made objective, social, public - and therefore they have been corrupted. 

This did not necessarily happen in the more remote past, because individual humans who operated within Systems were spontaneously (often unconsciously) spiritual Beings - that is, people just-were in-touch-with the world of spirit, gods, the dead - the supernatural, the magical etc. This inevitably had a spiritually-leavening effect upon even the most rational, mathematical, objective kind of System. 

Another aspect was that people were spontaneously and necessarily group-ish in their consciousness and behaviour. 

But as people became more fully "modern" - which is to say alienated, cut-off from the world of spirit, and from human groups; they ceased to leaven the objective structures of institutions with an unconscious spirituality - and the institutions became "objective" - on the surface, public, bureaucratic - in their essence. 

The individual human had to conform to the System, subordinate to it, obey it; in a one-way fashion - and thus totalitarianism was born.

Now, from here-and-now, there is no hope in Systems; including no hope in any possible or conceivable Church or spiritual organization - because these are now objective social structures in their essence. 

Detached, alienated, cut-off from the spiritual. Their structure and processes exclude the spiritual. 

That is why all Systems/ Institutions/ Organizations etc have become assimilated to totalitarianism. It is impossible that they would not be, because they cannot be anything else.  

To put it another way: As of 2025, there is no System that can - of itself - lead to positive spiritual results; and the stronger and more comprehensive is the System - the more spiritual harm it will be doing. 

**

Note added: If you are one of those who manage to convince yourself that Yes, this is true! All Systems are indeed assimilated to totalitarianism for everyone... But not for my church...

Then I would say - think again just how much discernment, evaluation and selectivity you have to apply to your church in order to be able to deny that it is fundamentally corrupted... just how much of your church you must in fact ignore in order to regard it as essentially true. 

And consider that the amount of discernment, evaluation, selectivity and ignoring that you must apply is continually increasing. 

Commenting suspended for a while

As I like to do from time to time, I'm taking a break from monitoring and moderating comments. Old comments are hidden but not lost, and will be restored when my current laziness has diminished. 

The weird delusions of geopolitics (to which we are nearly-all prone, nearly-all of the time)

If you can imagine yourself to be a human from another planet who had arrived to observe the denizens of the "Western" civilization on earth; I think you would be amazed at the amount of mental time and effort that we expend on having (strong!) opinions on geopolitical matters. 

So much of our public discourse is occupied by political and social issues, national and international - which are remote, second-hand (to put it kindly), and over which we can have no conceivable influence. 

It is a spell cast over almost all of us; and from which we only seldom and briefly awake to be astonished at ourselves... Before lapsing back into the bizarre world view in which "my opinion" on something geopolitical is supposed to be crucially important - both to the world and to my own identity and moral status. 

What is strangest of all, is the inbuilt expectation that - not only must we all have the "right" understanding of... everything; but also we are each supposed to have some sort of plan or blueprint for "fixing" the world! 

Indeed, the expectation is that we are not really entitled to an opinion unless we also have a plan to fix it: not only are we required to consider all the questions, but we are expected to know all the answers...

Not only should we have a plan to fix everything; but we ought to be doing something about fixing it. That "something" may, objectively, be of ludicrously trivial - like participating in an election every few years - but it is nonetheless believed to be morally mandatory, and causally linked to all that happens in the world! 

We are defined by that microscopic act - defined, I mean, in our own minds. 

More exactly, we must subscribe to, subordinate ourselves to, be loyal to; some kind of ideology (if not religion) that claims to be coherent and comprehensive: to have all the answers to all the questions - because any gap in the Qs or As is supposed be be a fatal deficit! 

That loyalty is (supposedly) what makes us a responsible human being.  

And if our ideology doesn't have a viewpoint on everything that happens to be in the news today - then it's no good, and we ought to change it!

 

I do not exempt myself from membership of this obviously-delusory way of living - it's just that very occasionally, such as the past few minutes; my mind clears of the smoke, I come-to-my-senses, and realize my insanity. 

Before lapsing back into the morass. 

"AI" and Schadenfreude

One of the multi-pronged and actively-corrupting effects of the current global establishment push of so-called text and image-generating "AI" is its encouragement (if encouragement were needed!) of that besetting sin of this time: Schadenfreude.  

I have come across many online binges of spiteful (almost erotic) glee, when people imagine the devastating effect that AI will supposedly have on destroying the livelihoods of journalists, illustrators, script-writers, novelists - and in general those involved in the visual and verbal aspects of mainstream media and public relations...

Nearly-all of whom enthusiastically put their talents in service to the agenda of value-corruption, and who appear to be 101% on-board with the demonic program of totalitarianism. 

The orgies of delight at what is hoped will be the deserved sufferings of these myrmidons of Satan is a certain evil in its own right... Which evil has nothing to do with the fact that these most of these people are apparently on the wrong side in the spiritual war of this world.

The idea that those destroyed deserve their sufferings, and that therefore it is right to take pleasure in their misery; is just one of those deadly rationalizations that prevent sin from being repented.

Therefore; the evil I describe comes from  resentment - not repented but instead actively celebrated, and rhetorically-intended to induce celebration in others. 

Of course; this is only a small aspect of the many evils that AI is planned to wreak upon the human spirit; yet it is a calculated consequence of the strategy of implementation, and deserves at least cursory acknowledgement. 

Jesus Christ and the ongoing Second Creation - reason for a personal relationship with Jesus during this mortal life

I have been blogging recently about the idea that Jesus's "cosmic" role was the Second Creation that is Heaven - Jesus made possible resurrected eternal life, and therefore Heaven. 

But, in addition, Jesus has a role as the Good Shepherd, who will lead each of us to Heaven, if we choose to follow him from love. 

One part of this leading, is for Jesus to show the way and make possible our transformation from mortal to immortal that is resurrection. 

Another aspect is that Jesus - who is the Holy Ghost - can (if voluntarily sought) provide guidance, comfort and positive encouragement, on a moment-by-moment basis, during this mortal life on earth. 

This guidance/ comfort/ encouragement from the Holy Ghost may come via prayer - in other words, by prayers addressed to Jesus. Or it may come by any other manifestation of a loving friendship with Jesus; such as in meditation, or by directing our thoughts and attention to Jesus at any time or place or situation.   

(It's not that I regard prayers and thoughts directed at God the Primary Creator as a wrong thing to do - but it seems to me that these are not specifically Christian. A Christian should, surely, be focused on Christ? And that includes prayer, meditation, and our best kind of thinking.)  

The purpose of this mortal life can be conceptualized negatively and positively. 

Negatively, there is the matter of learning from problems and mistakes, from disease and death, repenting sins... and the like. 

But a positive and strongly-motivating life goal is essential in these adverse times; and this motivation (because of the corruption of churches, along with other institutions, to the-side-of-evil) must be something that arises-from and works-at the individual personal level. 

In the first place it seems evident (from our own set-up and the way the world now is) that this motivating-purpose is something we need to work-out for ourselves, consciously and by active choice. 

This needs to come primarily from our intuition - which means from our real and eternal self. 

But this inner source is, of course, prone to error and self-deception; and that leads to the special role of the Holy Ghost. 

I think that, in general (there are exceptions), the role of the Holy Ghost is Not to provide primary guidance: Not to "tell us what to do". 

But instead the Holy Ghost is meant to serve as a check and confirmation on what we have personally discerned and worked-out. 

As a mega-simplification (!): First we decide what we ought to do; then we consult with the Holy Ghost that we have got-it-right; that this is, indeed, what we ought to do. 

So far; we are still in the double-negative territory... 

However; the positive role of the Holy Ghost is then in the comfort and encouragement, the energizing and enthusing, deriving from "knowing" that we are indeed personally and in these exact circumstances: doing the right thing.